Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?

Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

Anyone who can't figure out that the prefix "sometimes I want" (in the original statement now in question) or the expression "kicking out and installing" indicates something more anecdotal than literal, demonstrates reading skills in English well below that which is necessary for participating effectively in commonsensical discussions.

By "kicking out" and "installing", do you plan on circumventing the democratic process? Because that's the only way that would happen.

"Kicking out and installing" could simply mean impeaching and confirming a new leader.

And yet, when this was attempted against clinton, lefties screamed about how this was a clear abrogation of the democratic process.

Maybe you guys could just try winning presidential elections for a change?

whose a lefty? I just thought it was very petty for Republicans to investigate a politician for extra-marital affairs. I also thought it was hypocritical because many of them were sleeping around on their wives as well, and had they been asked under oath probably would have lied too.

Yet, you have a prez who lied to get us into a war, who authorized illegal wire taps on Americans and who allowed corporate friends to profit at the expense of soldiers by way of Halliburton-all of this and no outrage, no talk of impeachment. Just mindless defense by sheepish conservatives you constantly regurgitate "Well, Clinton had an affair..."

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?

Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.

So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?

Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.